When I talk about mind, I talk about thoughts, emotions, knowledge, imagination, perception.... Just because I can pinpoint the locations in the brain that light up when I do those things, that doesn't mean they're the same thing. — T Clark

As I understand your point, you are drawing a distinction between a scientific model and a philosophical representation. Modern Science is methodologically Physicalist, and studies material Quanta (neurons). But Philosophy is methodologically Mentalist, and examines immaterial Qualia (e.g. Ideas). As far as Science is concerned, Mind is merely the function of the Brain. No argument there.

However, Philosophers are more interested in the intangibles of Qualia questions : not what Mind consists of (physical structure), but what it does (mental functions). A Biologist will describe what the Brain looks like physically (mechanism), while a Philosopher is more interested in what Mind feels like experientially (thoughts, emotions). So, the Mind/Brain identity presumption may be appropriate for a Science forum, but not for a Philosophy forum. Hence, as far as Philosophy is concerned, they're not the same thing. Therefore, the fallacy here is to equate Mechanism with Meaning. :smile:

The Mind/Brain Identity Theory :
It has commonly been thought that the identity theory has been superseded by a theory called ‘functionalism’.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/

It says that an important component of consciousness is wakefulness. But sleepfullness is just as important. In dreams consciousness is pretty present. The strange think with dreams is that you can be conscious while you don't remember a thing about it. Dreams don't leave that many memory traces. Which is understandable.

You can have a material picture of a depression, but that doesn't explain the feeling.

Mind is merely the function of the Brain. No argument there. — Gnomon

Well, a lot of argument, arguably . Wind is not the function, nor the functioning matter. That leaves out that what's to be explained. Consciousness.

So, the Mind/Brain identity presumption may be appropriate for a Science forum, but not for a Philosophy forum. Hence, as far as Philosophy is concerned, they're not the same thing. Therefore, the fallacy here is to equate Mechanism with Meaning. — Gnomon

Yes, and the problem here is, that's an anti-philosophical cop-out for disregarding the science that has been established, that people employ here almost every single time I bring this u on this website. There is no understanding consciousness without the understanding what it is that is producing it, and how it operates. If one is going to have philosophical deliberations on the nature of consciousness, the science has to be incorporated into that view. To do otherwise would be a disregarding known science fallacy. Besides, the OP was about the functionalist aspect of consciousness. So, literally anybody disagreeing with me here about this is going to need to bring some data, and at bare minimum contend with what I have already brought that dispels with the mind/body "distinction" that doesn't exist according to the data.

It says that an important component of consciousness is wakefulness. — EugeneW

No, it clearly says more than that. And sleep is not an important component to consciousness in the regard we're talking about. Again, go back to what we were talking about.

Wind is not the function, nor the functioning matter. That leaves out that what's to be explained. Consciousness. — EugeneW

This is incoherent. And nothing has gone unexplained, you just keep saying that and then proceeding to attempt to relate it to something irrelevant. Stick to what the science has demonstrated. Where are you seeing a disconnect between conscious experience, and provisions of brain functions?

There is no understanding consciousness without the understanding what it is that is producing it, and how it operates — Garrett Travers

There is no understanding consciousness without introspection either.

There is no evidence pointing to the brain, and the brain alone, producing consciousness. If you disagree, pray tell, what is consciousness?

I'm tired of this circular reasoning. All that is known for certain is that the brain seems to have a correlation to objective, physical states of the body.

As I understand your point, you are drawing a distinction between a scientific model and a philosophical representation. — Gnomon

No, I'm talking about different levels of organization. When we talk about the nervous system, we talk about neurons and synapses. When we talk about the mind, we talk about thoughts, feelings, and perceptions. They're not the same thing whether we talk about them scientifically, philosophically, or just in an everyday manner.

You can feel free to convey that information and we'll have a look. — Garrett Travers

No thanx.

There is no understanding consciousness without introspection either. — RogueAI

Another function provided by the brain.

No thanx. — T Clark

I didn't think you had it in you.

When we talk about the mind, we talk about thoughts, feelings, and perceptions. They're not the same thing whether we talk about them scientifically, philosophically, or just in an everyday manner. — T Clark

Yes, they are: "Thus, the persistent firing needed to sustain a mental representation without sensory stimulation arises from recurrent glutamate NMDAR pyramidal cell excitation, likely in deep layer III and possibly superficial layer V."

" This extended network, encompassing sensory, attentional, and emotional circuits, facilitates the rapid detection of emotionally-significant information."

https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/23/10/2269/297007
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00058/full

Time to put up some evidence that supports your claim, or admit you're just saying this stuff for no reason.

There is no evidence pointing to the brain, and the brain alone, producing consciousness. If you disagree, pray tell, what is consciousness? — theRiddler

No, ALL the evidence that exists, that's every single bit of it, suggests that consciousness is the production of multiple complex regions of the brain working in sympohony. You guys can keep ignoring the research I've posted, but I'm going to keep walking away from this having to conclude you guys are not philosophically oriented, and are simply asserting things predicated upon your emotions.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fncel.2019.00302
https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/23/10/2269/297007
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00058/full

I'm tired of this circular reasoning. All that is known for certain is that the brain seems to have a correlation to objective, physical states of the body. — theRiddler

I'm tired of fabricated claims coming from all of you, that's what's circular. And this is one of the silliest things I've ever read. ALL that is known are these things you enumerated in your reductive and unsupoorted assertion? Unbelievable....

There is no understanding consciousness without introspection either.
— RogueAI

Another function provided by the brain. — Garrett Travers

The function doesn't explain what is seen. If I dream about a bird flying, you can describe that by the shape of a bird flying around on my neural structure and the looking at it by pointing at structures surrounding that, but that still doesn't explain me seeing the bird. You might conclude I see a bird by seeing a correlated structure of a bird in my brain, but that still doesn't explain the visual experience of the bird I dream of, nor your visual experience of neurons you see firing collectively.

The brain alone can't produce consciousness. It needs a body to live in and give consciousness to. No body no consciousness.

You guys can keep ignoring the research I've posted, but I'm going to keep walking away from this having to conclude you guys are not philosophically oriented, and are simply asserting things predicated upon your emotions. — Garrett Travers

I'm not following this discussion closely but for my money what seems to happen is people have already made up their minds what is true about consciousness and will only engage with ideas or 'evidence' which can be utilized to prove their point. I agree that emotions and aesthetic choices inform this process. Some people 'feel' the world they live in is more attractive and relatable with a god or a Schopenhauerian Will at the heart of it.

, ALL the evidence that exists, that's every single bit of it, suggests that consciousness is the production of multiple complex regions of the brain working in sympohony. You guys can keep ignoring the research I've posted, but I'm going to keep walking away from this having to conclude you guys are not philosophically oriented, and are simply asserting things predicated upon your emotions.

You're gonna be dealing with it a while, at least until the in-depth analysis of how the brain produces awareness arrives.

There's no such thing. You're just wrong, and as you accuse others, speaking from emotion. It's an apparent inferiority complex.

I was getting ready to post "nonsense!" to your reply, which I was sure was going to say that introspection is useless.

Clever!

You're gonna be dealing with it a while, at least until the in-depth analysis of how the brain produces awareness arrives.

There's no such thing. You're just wrong, and as you accuse others, speaking from emotion. It's an apparent inferiority complex. — theRiddler

Data is there, left it for you when you're emotionally ready.

I was getting ready to post "nonsense!" to your reply, which I was sure was going to say that introspection is useless.

Clever! — RogueAI

hehah

I'm not following this discussion closely but for my money what seems to happen is people have already made up their minds what is true about consciousness and will only engage with ideas or 'evidence' which can be utilized to prove their point. I agree that emotions and aesthetic choices inform this process. Some people 'feel' the world they live in is more attractive and relatable with a god or a Schopenhauerian Will at the heart of it. — Tom Storm

Which is fine, Tom. I'm all game for that. But, when an OP asks what such a theory would look like, and I relay the current standing data on the subject, and then I get argued with in a manner devoid of any evidence, any elaboration on what else could be going, and wholesale refusal to interact with me, I get a little suspicious that I'm the only philosopher speaking on the subject at present. You see what I'm saying here?

The function doesn't explain what is seen. If I dream about a bird flying, you can describe that by the shape of a bird flying around on my neural structure and the looking at it by pointing at structures surrounding that, but that still doesn't explain me seeing the bird. You might conclude I see a bird by seeing a correlated structure of a bird in my brain, but that still doesn't explain the visual experience of the bird I dream of, nor your visual experience of neurons you see firing collectively. — EugeneW

Evidence?

I get argued with in a manner devoid of any evidence — Garrett Travers

You accept only your own evidence. Such an explaining materialistic theory exists in the face of your theory only. Materialism can explain consciousness if you give matter a human face (or that of a canary). And add an extra ingredient. Of course I won't feel depressed if certain materials miss, needed in the processes going along with depression. Like consciousness is said to be epiphenomenal to the human brain, you can just as well say the material brain is the epiphenomenon and that the material brain needs an explanation on the basis of consciousness.

You accept only your own evidence. — EugeneW

No, the evidence. You present something, I review.

Like consciousness is said to be epiphenomenal to the human brain, you can just as well say the material brain is the epiphenomenon and that the material brain needs an explanation on the basis of consciousness. — EugeneW

This requires support. Why is this believed by you, what are you going off of?

Well, it depends what your emphasize. Matter or soul. There is also something inside of matter. The evidence is that I feel pain.

Well, it depends what your emphasize. Matter or soul. There is also something inside of matter. The evidence is that I feel pain. — EugeneW

Ah

Any time you can prove the brain alone generates consciousness, I'm more than ready. You don't even know what that is, though, and yet you say there's evidence towards. Complete woo.

Do you deny my evidence? If I feel pain, depression, fear, despair, melancholy, and have a sense the end is near, you can explain these feelings rationally by pointing how these feelings might benefit your survival and how these feelings can stimulate me as an organism to take proper action to evade the bad situation giving me that bad feelings but it's exactly that rational approach and its impact on physical reality that caused that feelings in the first place. And the feelings an Sich can't be explained by definition if you leave feeling out in the first place. That is, looking at it as a byproduct of material processes to somehow ensure material survival.

Yes, and the problem here is, that's an anti-philosophical cop-out for disregarding the science that has been established, that people employ here almost every single time I bring this u on this website. — Garrett Travers

You've made it clear that you interpret non-empirical philosophical interests as "anti-science". But some of us on this forum don't agree with that assessment. For me, Physics is the science of the Actual & even Probable, but Philosophy is the science the Possible. Scientists have been seeking an explanation of Consciousness for many years. But, due to the inherent limitations of their matter-based methods, they are no closer to understanding the transformation of matter into mind. Except that Claude Shannon's use of a mental term "information" --- to describe a new way to communicate ideas, beyond gestures, vocalizations, and writing --- opened-up a new direction in Science. Ironically, what is now labeled "Information Science" is based mostly on its material carriers, instead of its energetic power of transformation.

My personal understanding of the Qualia question is based on 21st century science, but is not limited to its atom-splitting methods. Instead, I take a Holistic or Systems approach. From that perspective, Mind is a recent innovation of evolution, in which novel forms emerged as Phase Transitions from lower to higher levels of complexity : mathematical singularity, energetic plasma, sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, material objects, stars, galaxies, planets, plants, animals, minds. You may not agree, but I perceive an upward arc of complexification in that sequence of events. Building on the scientific notion of Phase Transitions, I have produced a Philosophical model of evolution, which is summarized below. This is not presented as a scientific model. But it is definitely not anti-science. There is no magic involved, unless you think of Holistic Emergence and Phase Transitions as magic. :smile:

Science as we know it can’t explain consciousness – but a revolution is coming :
We have made a great deal of progress in understanding brain activity, and how it contributes to human behaviour. But what no one has so far managed to explain is how all of this results in feelings, emotions and experiences. ___Phillip Goff
https://theconversation.com/science-as-we-know-it-cant-explain-consciousness-but-a-revolution-is-coming-126143

Emergence :
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own,
___Wiki

Emergence of Mind :
Each phase of cosmic emergence creates a new holistic system with unique properties. But the Cosmos is a nested system of systems that interpenetrate and interact to some degree. The Quantum Field is a world unto itself with weird phenomena, such as entanglement, not found in the classical real world. The Physical Phase has only mechanical properties, but from it emerged the Organic Phase with mental qualities.
BothAnd Blog


Phase Changes of Evolution :
0. Omega Point :
Who knows?
9. Reiterate
Ongoing Emergences
8. Artificial Forms :
Machines, Computers
8. Metaphysical Forms
Reasoning & Designing
7. Organic Forms :
Life, Minds, Societies
6. Physical Forms :
Stars, Galaxies, Planets
5. Matter :
Primitive Particles
4. Energy :
Unformed Plasma
3. Quantum Field :
Statistical Possibilities
2. Big Bang :
Start the computation
Set initial conditions
1. Singularity :
Design, Codes, Laws

Emergence, Phase Transitions and Quantum Leaps :
* The unprecedented appearance of Life & Mind from a 13.8 billion year process of inorganic physics and chemistry was impossible for scientists to account for in their materialistic worldview. But even before those non-physical features arose, there were similar puzzling gaps in development. Everyone is familar with the strange behavior of water, which changes form significantly, depending on its energy state : solid, liquid, gas, or plasma. The fact of Phase Change is undeniable ─ you can feel snow melt on your tongue ─ but explaining the mechanics of how it happened in terms of known physical laws proved impossible.
* So, in the early 20th century a few philosopher-scientists began to develop a theory of Emergence. The primary defining characteristic of emergent states of matter was that the properties of “higher” phases were impossible to predict from those of the lower phases. It was as-if matter on a macro scale made a quantum leap from one energy state to another, just like electrons jumping from orbit to orbit around an atom without passing through any of the intermediate possible states : like going from 5 to 10 without passing through 6-7-8-9. In a deterministic materialistic worldview, this just does not compute.
* Meanwhile the problem of mechanically unpredictable behavior was causing problems in other macro scale material phenomena. For example, within the random interactions of Chaotic Systems, stable form patterns, feedback loops, and fractal self-similarities appear out of nowhere as-if self-organized. These novel states of matter can be traced back to initial conditions, but again the intermediate steps are blurred by randomness. So, the novelty and discontinuity of those observed stable states seemed to emerge from nowhere.
* From Quantum Leaps to Phase Changes to Chaotic Structures, Nature seems hide some of its magic behind the smokescreen of Randomness. Which is why scientists working on the fuzzy fringes of their specialty ─ like Einstein and Quantum Theorists ─ are forced to think like artists or poets by leaping from Rigid Reasoning to Fluid Imagination without being able to explain the steps from problem to intuition. Because such leaps of Logic cannot be justified by tracing new ideas directly back to their source, they lend them-selves to cynical manipulations of credulity, which is anathema to the scientific method, but not necessarily to non-empirical philosophical methods.
* In any case, the unprecedented emergence of Life, Mind, and Self-Consciousness from a purely physical process may not be such a mystery, if the reality of Metaphysics can be taken seriously. We all know that mental processes follow different rules from those of Physics, with only a foundation of mathematical logic in common. Which is why EnFormAction theory posits a new kind of causality, involving un-scientific notions of Holism (versus Reductionism), Emergence (versus Determinism), and Teleology (versus Random Accidents). Those philosophical terms are attempts to explain the mysteries of physical transformations without resorting to smoke & mirrors. They are all subsumed under the concept of EnFormAction, which bears an uncanny resemblance to ancient pre-scientific notions of Divine Will, and Elan Vital. The difference that makes a difference, is that EFA does not need to hide behind artifacts of faith. It should be completely open to critical questioning and rational testing, even as it requires some tolerance for flights of fancy and leaps of Logic, to inject some freedom into the strait & narrow path of hard science. At the moment, it’s not Science, but Philosophy
BothAnd Blog, post 60